Subject: AH Challenge: American House of Lords Date: 31 May 2001 07:09:23 -0700 From: joergradd@yahoo.de (Jörg Raddatz) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if So in Westminster someone realized in the 1760s that it was better to give semi-independence to thos colonials in North America than to lose everything you´ve gained some years before. After a lot of scheming, the British America Act (BAA) is established, creating a federation of provinces with a permenent Congress housed in Philadelphia. Congress consists of a House of Commons, which elects the Prime Minister for America and his Cabinet, and a House of Lords, which are appointed by the Crown to represent the Provinces and the people in general. They have to reside and own property in the province chosen for. The Governor-General is appointed by the Crown to supervise it all and to represent good old Britain in America. For the time being, he´ll also be Commander in Chief of the armed forces in British America. Each province can elect its Assembly and its First Minister. Also it advises the provincial Lieutenant-General (who is appointed by the Crown) whom to suggest as appointee for the House of Lords. Now you are the person to make all these appointments. The People of OTLs British America in 1765 are all alive in this TL and have basically the political convictions of OTL, perhaps mellowed a bit by seeing the successful compromise. You can appoint: ~ the Governor-General of British America (preferably British, or at least an American with a lot of prestige) ~ one Lord for the Province of Nova Scotia ~ four Lords for the Province of Massachussetts ~ two Lords for the Province of New Hampshire ~ one Lord for the Province of Rhode Island & PP ~ two Lords for the Province of Connecticut ~ three Lords for the Province of New York ~ two Lords for the Province of New Jersey ~ four Lords for the Province of Pennsylvania & the Lower Counties ~ three Lords for the Province of Maryland ~ six Lords for the Province of Virginia ~ three Lords for the Province of North Carolina ~ two Lords for the Province of South Carolina ~ one Lord for the Province of Georgia ~ one Lord for the Province of East Florida ~ one Lord for the Province of West Florida N.B.: The Province of Quebec is not (yet) included. You can style the lords as you like (Lord Potomac), but probably they will ba just barons unless you have a very good reason to make them viscounts or earls. The people chosen have to accept, so radical revolutionaries will probably not. And who will be elected as First Ministers of the provinces and as Premier of the whole Federation? I´m awaiting your choices ... Joerg Subject: Re: AH Challenge: American House of Lords Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 21:05:07 GMT From: jawolf@mediaone.net (James A. Wolf) Organization: Disorganization Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 joergradd@yahoo.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Raddatz?=) wrote: > >You can appoint: Well I can't help you with personel, but I can come up with the titles! >~ the Governor-General of British America (preferably British, or at least >an American with a lot of prestige) >~ one Lord for the Province of Nova Scotia The Earl of Fundy >~ four Lords for the Province of Massachussetts Lord Penobscott (Maine) Lord Worcester Viscount Shawmuit (Boston & North Shore) Lord Nantucket (South Shore, Cape and Islands) Ideally there would be five. (A lord for the North shore with its heavy shipbuilding and maritime concerns. Cape Ann perhaps.) >~ two Lords for the Province of New Hampshire Lord Ammonoosuk (White Mountains) Lord Merrimac (Southern NH) >~ one Lord for the Province of Rhode Island & PP Baron Narragansett >~ two Lords for the Province of Connecticut Lord Hertford Upon Connecticut Lord Hustatonic >~ three Lords for the Province of New York Try five! Lord Brooklyn & Montauk (Long Island) The Earl of Manhattan Lord Killington (Modern Vermont) Lord New Albany (A military position) Lord Erie. >~ two Lords for the Province of New Jersey Lord Passaic Lord New Camden >~ four Lords for the Province of Pennsylvania & the Lower Counties The Duke of Philadelphia (It's the most populous city in the US and about #3 in the British Empire) Lord Allegheny (Far west) Lord Susquehanna (N East.) Earl Harrisburg (South-central) >~ three Lords for the Province of Maryland Lord Patomic Lord Baltimore Lord Chesapeake >~ six Lords for the Province of Virginia Lord Appalachia (Modern W Va) Lord Shennedoah Lord Piedmont Lord Newport News Lord Drerys Bluff (Richmond) Lord Rappahanock >~ three Lords for the Province of North Carolina Lord Winston-Salem Lord Palmico Lord Cape Fear >~ two Lords for the Province of South Carolina Lord Charleston Lord Catawaba >~ one Lord for the Province of Georgia Earl Augusta >~ one Lord for the Province of East Florida >~ one Lord for the Province of West Florida Weren't these still Spanish? -- <*> James A. Wolf - jawolf@mediaone.net - people.ne.mediaone.net/jawolf <*> "The jawbone of an ass is | "In the beining the Universe was created. just as dangerous a weapon | This has made a lot of people very angry and been today as in Samson's time." | widely regarded as a bad move." Richard M. Nixon | Doug Adams 'So long and thanks for all the books.' Subject: Re: AH Challenge: American House of Lords Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 23:41:56 -0400 From: James D Thompson Organization: I Realize these Views are Unpopular, but I've Never been One to Court Popularity Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 James A. Wolf wrote: > > >~ six Lords for the Province of Virginia > > Lord Appalachia (Modern W Va) > Lord Shennedoah > Lord Piedmont > Lord Newport News > Lord Drerys Bluff (Richmond) > Lord Rappahanock Not even close. A hereditary peerage in Virginia would have been granted to the wealthy, longstanding families of the colony. Geography wouldn't have been even a minor consideration (and most of the places you mentioned were lightly settled in the 1760s). Lords: Westover (Byrd) Nomini (Carter) Kingsmill (Burwell) Claremont (Allen) Stratford (Lee) Belvoir (Fairfax) David Thompson -- Any minute now, I expect the villagers to mob my house with pitch forks and torches. Fortunately for me, Mac isn't all that bright, so they'll probably mob the neighbors. -Podkayne Fries, 5-10-01 Subject: Re: AH Challenge: American House of Lords Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:10:58 GMT From: Mike Cleven Organization: Iron Mountain Creative Systems Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "James A. Wolf" wrote: > > joergradd@yahoo.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Raddatz?=) wrote: > > > >You can appoint: > > Well I can't help you with personel, but I can come up with the > titles! > > >~ the Governor-General of British America (preferably British, or at least > >an American with a lot of prestige) > >~ one Lord for the Province of Nova Scotia > > The Earl of Fundy > > >~ four Lords for the Province of Massachussetts > > Lord Penobscott (Maine) > Lord Worcester > Viscount Shawmuit (Boston & North Shore) > Lord Nantucket (South Shore, Cape and Islands) Doesn't Lord Chappaquidick have a nicer ring to it? > Ideally there would be five. (A lord for the North shore with its > heavy shipbuilding and maritime concerns. Cape Ann perhaps.) > > >~ two Lords for the Province of New Hampshire > > Lord Ammonoosuk (White Mountains) > Lord Merrimac (Southern NH) > > >~ one Lord for the Province of Rhode Island & PP > > Baron Narragansett Baron Newport? > >~ two Lords for the Province of Connecticut > > Lord Hertford Upon Connecticut > Lord Hustatonic > > >~ three Lords for the Province of New York > > Try five! > > Lord Brooklyn & Montauk (Long Island) > The Earl of Manhattan > Lord Killington (Modern Vermont) > Lord New Albany (A military position) > Lord Erie. Lord Ticonderoga, perhaps? > >~ two Lords for the Province of New Jersey > > Lord Passaic > Lord New Camden > > >~ four Lords for the Province of Pennsylvania & the Lower Counties > > The Duke of Philadelphia (It's the most populous city in the US and > about #3 in the British Empire) > Lord Allegheny (Far west) > Lord Susquehanna (N East.) > Earl Harrisburg (South-central) > > >~ three Lords for the Province of Maryland > > Lord Patomic Potomac, enit? > Lord Baltimore > Lord Chesapeake the one with the floppy ears and liver spots? > >~ six Lords for the Province of Virginia > > Lord Appalachia (Modern W Va) > Lord Shennedoah > Lord Piedmont > Lord Newport News > Lord Drerys Bluff (Richmond) > Lord Rappahanock > > >~ three Lords for the Province of North Carolina > > Lord Winston-Salem > Lord Palmico > Lord Cape Fear > > >~ two Lords for the Province of South Carolina > > Lord Charleston > Lord Catawaba > > >~ one Lord for the Province of Georgia > > Earl Augusta > > >~ one Lord for the Province of East Florida > >~ one Lord for the Province of West Florida MC Subject: Re: AH Challenge: American House of Lords Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 17:38:19 GMT From: jawolf@mediaone.net (James A. Wolf) Organization: Disorganization Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Mike Cleven wrote: > > >"James A. Wolf" wrote: >> >> joergradd@yahoo.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Raddatz?=) wrote: >> > >> >You can appoint: >> >> Well I can't help you with personel, but I can come up with the >> titles! >> >> >~ the Governor-General of British America (preferably British, or at least >> >an American with a lot of prestige) >> >~ one Lord for the Province of Nova Scotia >> >> The Earl of Fundy >> >> >~ four Lords for the Province of Massachussetts >> >> Lord Penobscott (Maine) >> Lord Worcester >> Viscount Shawmuit (Boston & North Shore) >> Lord Nantucket (South Shore, Cape and Islands) > > >Doesn't Lord Chappaquidick have a nicer ring to it? You're evil. Hillarious but evil. Keep up the good work. > >> Ideally there would be five. (A lord for the North shore with its >> heavy shipbuilding and maritime concerns. Cape Ann perhaps.) >> >> >~ two Lords for the Province of New Hampshire >> >> Lord Ammonoosuk (White Mountains) >> Lord Merrimac (Southern NH) >> >> >~ one Lord for the Province of Rhode Island & PP >> >> Baron Narragansett > >Baron Newport? I chose Narragansett because it's the bay the dominates RI. > >> >~ two Lords for the Province of Connecticut >> >> Lord Hertford Upon Connecticut >> Lord Hustatonic >> >> >~ three Lords for the Province of New York >> >> Try five! >> >> Lord Brooklyn & Montauk (Long Island) >> The Earl of Manhattan >> Lord Killington (Modern Vermont) >> Lord New Albany (A military position) >> Lord Erie. > >Lord Ticonderoga, perhaps? That works as well. I was using a modern atlas to chose the names without repeating too many English ones. > >> >~ two Lords for the Province of New Jersey >> >> Lord Passaic >> Lord New Camden >> >> >~ four Lords for the Province of Pennsylvania & the Lower Counties >> >> The Duke of Philadelphia (It's the most populous city in the US and >> about #3 in the British Empire) >> Lord Allegheny (Far west) >> Lord Susquehanna (N East.) >> Earl Harrisburg (South-central) >> >> >~ three Lords for the Province of Maryland >> >> Lord Patomic > >Potomac, enit? > >> Lord Baltimore >> Lord Chesapeake > >the one with the floppy ears and liver spots? That's Sir Snoopy, > >> >~ six Lords for the Province of Virginia >> >> Lord Appalachia (Modern W Va) >> Lord Shennedoah >> Lord Piedmont >> Lord Newport News >> Lord Drerys Bluff (Richmond) >> Lord Rappahanock >> >> >~ three Lords for the Province of North Carolina >> >> Lord Winston-Salem >> Lord Palmico >> Lord Cape Fear >> >> >~ two Lords for the Province of South Carolina >> >> Lord Charleston >> Lord Catawaba >> >> >~ one Lord for the Province of Georgia >> >> Earl Augusta >> >> >~ one Lord for the Province of East Florida >> >~ one Lord for the Province of West Florida > >MC -- <*> James A. Wolf - jawolf@mediaone.net - people.ne.mediaone.net/jawolf <*> "The jawbone of an ass is | "In the beining the Universe was created. just as dangerous a weapon | This has made a lot of people very angry and been today as in Samson's time." | widely regarded as a bad move." Richard M. Nixon | Doug Adams 'So long and thanks for all the books.' Subject: Re: AH Challenge: American House of Lords Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:52:54 GMT From: Mike Cleven Organization: Iron Mountain Creative Systems Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Jörg Raddatz wrote: > > So in Westminster someone realized in the 1760s that it was better to give > semi-independence to thos colonials in North America than to lose everything > you´ve gained some years before. > After a lot of scheming, the British America Act (BAA) is established, > creating a federation of provinces with a permenent Congress housed in > Philadelphia. Congress consists of a House of Commons, which elects > the Prime Minister for America and his Cabinet, and a House of Lords, > which are appointed by the Crown to represent the Provinces and the > people in general. They have to reside and own property in the province > chosen for. > The Governor-General is appointed by the Crown to supervise it all and > to represent good old Britain in America. For the time being, he´ll also > be Commander in Chief of the armed forces in British America. > Each province can elect its Assembly and its First Minister. Also it advises > the provincial Lieutenant-General (who is appointed by the Crown) whom > to suggest as appointee for the House of Lords. > > Now you are the person to make all these appointments. The People of > OTLs British America in 1765 are all alive in this TL and have basically > the political convictions of OTL, perhaps mellowed a bit by seeing the > successful compromise. > > You can appoint: > ~ the Governor-General of British America (preferably British, or at least > an American with a lot of prestige) > ~ one Lord for the Province of Nova Scotia > ~ four Lords for the Province of Massachussetts > ~ two Lords for the Province of New Hampshire > ~ one Lord for the Province of Rhode Island & PP > ~ two Lords for the Province of Connecticut > ~ three Lords for the Province of New York > ~ two Lords for the Province of New Jersey > ~ four Lords for the Province of Pennsylvania & the Lower Counties > ~ three Lords for the Province of Maryland > ~ six Lords for the Province of Virginia > ~ three Lords for the Province of North Carolina > ~ two Lords for the Province of South Carolina > ~ one Lord for the Province of Georgia > ~ one Lord for the Province of East Florida > ~ one Lord for the Province of West Florida > N.B.: The Province of Quebec is not (yet) included. > > You can style the lords as you like (Lord Potomac), but probably they > will ba just barons unless you have a very good reason to make them > viscounts or earls. The people chosen have to accept, so radical > revolutionaries will probably not. > > And who will be elected as First Ministers of the provinces and as Premier > of the whole Federation? > > I´m awaiting your choices ... The model you're using was not invented until the 1860s..... MC Subject: Re: AH Challenge: American House of Lords Date: 31 May 2001 14:32:16 -0700 From: joergradd@yahoo.de (Jörg Raddatz) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Mike Cleven wrote in message news:<3B1676F7.D9F16E91@bigfoot.com>... > The model you're using was not invented until the 1860s..... > > MC Yes, I know. In OTL. But I don´t think it´s so far-fetched that it could not been established a hundred yeras before. It unlike, but not *too* unlike the US constitution, and were talking about basically the same people here. Joerg Subject: Re: AH Challenge: American House of Lords Date: 31 May 2001 10:13:45 -0700 From: dmaqgregor@hotmail.com (Daniel MacGregor) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 joergradd@yahoo.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Raddatz?=) wrote in message news:... > So in Westminster someone realized in the 1760s that it was better to give > semi-independence to thos colonials in North America than to lose everything > you´ve gained some years before. > After a lot of scheming, the British America Act (BAA) is established, > creating a federation of provinces with a permenent Congress housed in > Philadelphia. It would have been called Parliament, not Congress Congress consists of a House of Commons, which elects > the Prime Minister for America and his Cabinet, and a House of Lords, > which are appointed by the Crown to represent the Provinces and the > people in general. They have to reside and own property in the province > chosen for. If you can get hold of it see the book "Anglo-American union; Joseph Galloway's plans to preserve the British Empire, 1774-1788," by Julian P. Boyd, for plans of union more attuned to the 18th century. This last passage is a lot anachronistic, given that the House of Commons didn't "elect" the prime minister, then, or now. And I don't recall the Lords (Spiritual and Temporal) fulfilling the role of geographical representation in the British system, even though the United States Senate does partially derive from it (and so does the U.S. Supreme Court). > The Governor-General is appointed by the Crown to supervise it all and > to represent good old Britain in America. For the time being, he´ll also > be Commander in Chief of the armed forces in British America. > Each province can elect its Assembly and its First Minister. In pre-Independence America, the "parliamentary" system we know today wasn't really in existence. The Governor (Crown's represntative) governed like the pre-Glorious Revolution monarch: he chose his Executive Council (equivalent to the Cabinet/Privy Council) who advised him in his governance of the province. Also it advises > the provincial Lieutenant-General (who is appointed by the Crown) Did you mean Lieutenant Governor? Or were you thinking along the lines of "Lieutenant General of the Realm" (like the future Umberto II of Italy was from 1943-46, while his father remained on the throne)? whom > to suggest as appointee for the House of Lords. > > Now you are the person to make all these appointments. The People of > OTLs British America in 1765 are all alive in this TL and have basically > the political convictions of OTL, perhaps mellowed a bit by seeing the > successful compromise. > > You can appoint: > ~ the Governor-General of British America (preferably British, or at least > an American with a lot of prestige) > ~ one Lord for the Province of Nova Scotia > ~ four Lords for the Province of Massachussetts > ~ two Lords for the Province of New Hampshire > ~ one Lord for the Province of Rhode Island & PP > ~ two Lords for the Province of Connecticut > ~ three Lords for the Province of New York > ~ two Lords for the Province of New Jersey > ~ four Lords for the Province of Pennsylvania & the Lower Counties > ~ three Lords for the Province of Maryland > ~ six Lords for the Province of Virginia > ~ three Lords for the Province of North Carolina > ~ two Lords for the Province of South Carolina > ~ one Lord for the Province of Georgia > ~ one Lord for the Province of East Florida > ~ one Lord for the Province of West Florida > N.B.: The Province of Quebec is not (yet) included. Pourquoi pas? > > You can style the lords as you like (Lord Potomac), but probably they > will ba just barons unless you have a very good reason to make them > viscounts or earls. The people chosen have to accept, so radical > revolutionaries will probably not. Joseph Galloway, in his plans for Anglo-American union, may have been thinking along the lines of life peerages for America. It's been a while since I read Boyd's book. And, don't forget, everybody in 1765 probably considered himself as a loyal subject of the Crown, even those who we would later count as radical revolutionaries. And Tom Paine, IIRC, ewas still living in England at this time. Daniel MacGregor Subject: Re: AH Challenge: American House of Lords Date: 31 May 2001 14:45:42 -0700 From: joergradd@yahoo.de (Jörg Raddatz) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 dmaqgregor@hotmail.com (Daniel MacGregor) wrote in message news:<47114b80.0105310913.735c4795@posting.google.com>... > joergradd@yahoo.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Raddatz?=) wrote in message news:... > > After a lot of scheming, the British America Act (BAA) is established, > > creating a federation of provinces with a permenent Congress housed in > > Philadelphia. > > It would have been called Parliament, not Congress > I just thought that the Weszminster parliament would have liked another name for the American Assembly just to make sure that itself was the only "real, original" Parliament. > Congress consists of a House of Commons, which elects > > the Prime Minister for America and his Cabinet, and a House of Lords, > > which are appointed by the Crown to represent the Provinces and the > > people in general. They have to reside and own property in the province > > chosen for. > > If you can get hold of it see the book "Anglo-American union; Joseph > Galloway's plans to preserve the British Empire, 1774-1788," by Julian > P. Boyd, for plans of union more attuned to the 18th century. This > last passage is a lot anachronistic, given that the House of Commons > didn't "elect" the prime minister, then, or now. OK, I was very imprecise. The voters elect the members of Perlaiment and it is customary that the leader of the majority party is appointed prime minister. Correct? > And I don't recall the Lords (Spiritual and Temporal) fulfilling the > role of geographical representation in the British system, even though > the United States Senate does partially derive from it (and so does > the U.S. Supreme Court). Cannot argue with that. But I never said that the British system was copied one-to-one. It only serves as an inspiration, but American pheneomena must be dealt with in a new way. > > > The Governor-General is appointed by the Crown to supervise it all and > > to represent good old Britain in America. For the time being, he´ll also > > be Commander in Chief of the armed forces in British America. > > Each province can elect its Assembly and its First Minister. > > In pre-Independence America, the "parliamentary" system we know today > wasn't really in existence. The Governor (Crown's represntative) > governed like the pre-Glorious Revolution monarch: he chose his > Executive Council (equivalent to the Cabinet/Privy Council) who > advised him in his governance of the province. But Britain was post-Glorious revolution, so why could the reforms not be brought to America as well. > > Also it advises > > the provincial Lieutenant-General (who is appointed by the Crown) > > Did you mean Lieutenant Governor? Yes. Pardon the typo/writing error. > > whom > > to suggest as appointee for the House of Lords. > > > > Now you are the person to make all these appointments. The People of > > OTLs British America in 1765 are all alive in this TL and have basically > > the political convictions of OTL, perhaps mellowed a bit by seeing the > > successful compromise. > > > > You can appoint: > > ~ the Governor-General of British America (preferably British, or at least > > an American with a lot of prestige) > > ~ one Lord for the Province of Nova Scotia > > ~ four Lords for the Province of Massachussetts > > ~ two Lords for the Province of New Hampshire > > ~ one Lord for the Province of Rhode Island & PP > > ~ two Lords for the Province of Connecticut > > ~ three Lords for the Province of New York > > ~ two Lords for the Province of New Jersey > > ~ four Lords for the Province of Pennsylvania & the Lower Counties > > ~ three Lords for the Province of Maryland > > ~ six Lords for the Province of Virginia > > ~ three Lords for the Province of North Carolina > > ~ two Lords for the Province of South Carolina > > ~ one Lord for the Province of Georgia > > ~ one Lord for the Province of East Florida > > ~ one Lord for the Province of West Florida > > N.B.: The Province of Quebec is not (yet) included. > > Pourquoi pas? Just because I thought that it was not British long enough to get this grade of self-government. > > > > You can style the lords as you like (Lord Potomac), but probably they > > will ba just barons unless you have a very good reason to make them > > viscounts or earls. The people chosen have to accept, so radical > > revolutionaries will probably not. > > Joseph Galloway, in his plans for Anglo-American union, may have been > thinking along the lines of life peerages for America. It's been a > while since I read Boyd's book. > > And, don't forget, everybody in 1765 probably considered himself as a > loyal subject of the Crown, even those who we would later count as > radical revolutionaries. > > And Tom Paine, IIRC, ewas still living in England at this time. > > Daniel MacGregor Thanks for your comments, but I still think that my concept is one possibility, not more and not less. Sometimes political solutions have been accepted that had sounded less plausible beforehand. No ASBs necessary. And what I am really interested in, can be found in the subject line: IF life peereage for Americans were introduced in the 1760s, who would probably have been chosen? Joerg Subject: Re: AH Challenge: American House of Lords Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 00:07:35 GMT From: plloyd@ecel.uwa.edu.au Organization: The University of Western Australia Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 In article , joergradd@yahoo.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Raddatz?=) wrote: >> If you can get hold of it see the book "Anglo-American union; Joseph >> Galloway's plans to preserve the British Empire, 1774-1788," by Julian >> P. Boyd, for plans of union more attuned to the 18th century. This >> last passage is a lot anachronistic, given that the House of Commons >> didn't "elect" the prime minister, then, or now. > >OK, I was very imprecise. The voters elect the members of Perlaiment and >it is customary that the leader of the majority party is appointed prime >minister. Correct? Yes, although until early tbhgis century the leader, and hence Prime-Minister, could just as well be a member of the House of Lords. Not also the Prime minister is really just a colloquial title... strictly he's the First lord of the Treasury. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: American House of Lords Date: 1 Jun 2001 09:28:21 -0700 From: dmaqgregor@hotmail.com (Daniel MacGregor) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 > > joergradd@yahoo.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Raddatz?=) wrote in message news:... > > > Congress consists of a House of Commons, which elects > > > the Prime Minister for America and his Cabinet, and a House of Lords, > > > which are appointed by the Crown to represent the Provinces and the > > > people in general. They have to reside and own property in the province > > > chosen for. > > > > If you can get hold of it see the book "Anglo-American union; Joseph > > Galloway's plans to preserve the British Empire, 1774-1788," by Julian > > P. Boyd, for plans of union more attuned to the 18th century. This > > last passage is a lot anachronistic, given that the House of Commons > > didn't "elect" the prime minister, then, or now. > > OK, I was very imprecise. The voters elect the members of Perlaiment and > it is customary that the leader of the majority party is appointed prime > minister. Correct? That's what it is now, and that's what it became. I think, however, that if you told George III that that's how the system worked...well, let's just say that he, and most of his subjects, had other ideas on the subject. He was reported to have been influenced in his thinking on the Crown and his exercise of its' powers by Viscount Bolingbroke's book "The Idea of a Patriot King." > > > And I don't recall the Lords (Spiritual and Temporal) fulfilling the > > role of geographical representation in the British system, even though > > the United States Senate does partially derive from it (and so does > > the U.S. Supreme Court). > > Cannot argue with that. But I never said that the British system was copied > one-to-one. It only serves as an inspiration, but American pheneomena must > be dealt with in a new way. > > > > > > The Governor-General is appointed by the Crown to supervise it all and > > > to represent good old Britain in America. For the time being, he´ll also > > > be Commander in Chief of the armed forces in British America. > > > Each province can elect its Assembly and its First Minister. > > > > In pre-Independence America, the "parliamentary" system we know today > > wasn't really in existence. The Governor (Crown's represntative) > > governed like the pre-Glorious Revolution monarch: he chose his > > Executive Council (equivalent to the Cabinet/Privy Council) who > > advised him in his governance of the province. > > But Britain was post-Glorious revolution, so why could the reforms not > be brought to America as well. That's why we wound up having a War of Independence. The "Glorious" Revolution was strictly for home consumption, and by that I mean Great Britain. Not Ireland, and certainly not "the Colonies" or India. Ultimately, it's one of those little internal contradictions that brings about the Fall of the British Empire. > > > > > > > You can appoint: > > > ~ the Governor-General of British America (preferably British, or at least > > > an American with a lot of prestige) > > > ~ one Lord for the Province of Nova Scotia > > > ~ four Lords for the Province of Massachussetts > > > ~ two Lords for the Province of New Hampshire > > > ~ one Lord for the Province of Rhode Island & PP > > > ~ two Lords for the Province of Connecticut > > > ~ three Lords for the Province of New York > > > ~ two Lords for the Province of New Jersey > > > ~ four Lords for the Province of Pennsylvania & the Lower Counties > > > ~ three Lords for the Province of Maryland > > > ~ six Lords for the Province of Virginia > > > ~ three Lords for the Province of North Carolina > > > ~ two Lords for the Province of South Carolina > > > ~ one Lord for the Province of Georgia > > > ~ one Lord for the Province of East Florida > > > ~ one Lord for the Province of West Florida > > > N.B.: The Province of Quebec is not (yet) included. > > Thanks for your comments, > but I still think that my concept is one possibility, not more and > not less. Sometimes political solutions have been accepted that had > sounded less plausible beforehand. No ASBs necessary. > And what I am really interested in, can be found in the subject line: > IF life peereage for Americans were introduced in the 1760s, who would > probably have been chosen? > > Joerg I won't offer any names, but I will offer the following observations. One of the aspects of the American War of Independence is that it is a power struggle between the upper and lower layers of the colonial "establishment." If such a plan, or something like it, is carried out, the Adamses, Patrick Henry Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay and Patrick Henry would have constituted the "Commons." The American "Lords?" Look to those who served on the colonial Executive, Legislative and Judicial Councils during those years. Later, maybe also the two American born royal governors, Thomas Hutchinson of Massachusetts and William (son of Ben) Franklin of New Jersey. If Washington is lucky, he gets a commission in the British Army. If not, he heads the "colonial" forces. (As with India, I think there'll be two "armies:" the American Army and the British Army in America.) Daniel MacGregor Subject: Re: AH Challenge: American House of Lords Date: 1 Jun 2001 16:51:54 -0700 From: joergradd@yahoo.de (Jörg Raddatz) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 dmaqgregor@hotmail.com (Daniel MacGregor) wrote in message news:<47114b80.0106010828.58214548@posting.google.com>... > I won't offer any names, but I will offer the following observations. > One of the aspects of the American War of Independence is that it is a > power struggle between the upper and lower layers of the colonial > "establishment." If such a plan, or something like it, is carried > out, the Adamses, Patrick Henry Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay > and Patrick Henry would have constituted the "Commons." The American > "Lords?" Look to those who served on the colonial Executive, > Legislative and Judicial Councils during those years. Later, maybe > also the two American born royal governors, Thomas Hutchinson of > Massachusetts and William (son of Ben) Franklin of New Jersey. > > If Washington is lucky, he gets a commission in the British Army. If > not, he heads the "colonial" forces. (As with India, I think there'll > be two "armies:" the American Army and the British Army in America.) > > Daniel MacGregor Thank you very much. I didn´t realize that and must admit that I hoped to see e.g. Sir Thomas Jefferson, the 1st Lord Monticello (or such). Well, I´ll follow your advice and read more about the pre-revolutionary dignitaries. Hm, I didn´t even know about William Franklin. Perhaps a veriation of the Albany plan gets accepted, might that bring Benjemin Franklin a title of nobility his son can inherit? Joerg Subject: Re: AH Challenge: American House of Lords Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:08:57 GMT From: Mike Cleven Organization: Iron Mountain Creative Systems Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Jörg Raddatz wrote: > > dmaqgregor@hotmail.com (Daniel MacGregor) wrote in message news:<47114b80.0106010828.58214548@posting.google.com>... > > I won't offer any names, but I will offer the following observations. > > One of the aspects of the American War of Independence is that it is a > > power struggle between the upper and lower layers of the colonial > > "establishment." If such a plan, or something like it, is carried > > out, the Adamses, Patrick Henry Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay > > and Patrick Henry would have constituted the "Commons." The American > > "Lords?" Look to those who served on the colonial Executive, > > Legislative and Judicial Councils during those years. Later, maybe > > also the two American born royal governors, Thomas Hutchinson of > > Massachusetts and William (son of Ben) Franklin of New Jersey. > > > > If Washington is lucky, he gets a commission in the British Army. If > > not, he heads the "colonial" forces. (As with India, I think there'll > > be two "armies:" the American Army and the British Army in America.) > > > > Daniel MacGregor > > Thank you very much. > I didn´t realize that and must admit that I hoped to see e.g. Sir Thomas > Jefferson, the 1st Lord Monticello (or such). > Well, I´ll follow your advice and read more about the pre-revolutionary > dignitaries. > Hm, I didn´t even know about William Franklin. Perhaps a veriation of > the Albany plan gets accepted, might that bring Benjemin Franklin a title of > nobility his son can inherit? Perhaps an auction of titles in the New World to buy off the revolutionary intelligentsia with? MC Subject: Re: AH Challenge: American House of Lords Date: 4 Jun 2001 07:38:40 -0700 From: dmaqgregor@hotmail.com (Daniel MacGregor) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Mike Cleven wrote in message news:<3B184AAB.46CF9AE7@bigfoot.com>... > Jörg Raddatz wrote: > > > > dmaqgregor@hotmail.com (Daniel MacGregor) wrote in message news:<47114b80.0106010828.58214548@posting.google.com>... > > > I won't offer any names, but I will offer the following observations. > > > One of the aspects of the American War of Independence is that it is a > > > power struggle between the upper and lower layers of the colonial > > > "establishment." If such a plan, or something like it, is carried > > > out, the Adamses, Patrick Henry Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay > > > and Patrick Henry would have constituted the "Commons." The American > > > "Lords?" Look to those who served on the colonial Executive, > > > Legislative and Judicial Councils during those years. Later, maybe > > > also the two American born royal governors, Thomas Hutchinson of > > > Massachusetts and William (son of Ben) Franklin of New Jersey. > > > > > > If Washington is lucky, he gets a commission in the British Army. If > > > not, he heads the "colonial" forces. (As with India, I think there'll > > > be two "armies:" the American Army and the British Army in America.) > > > > > > Daniel MacGregor > > > > Thank you very much. > > I didn´t realize that and must admit that I hoped to see e.g. Sir Thomas > > Jefferson, the 1st Lord Monticello (or such). > > Well, I´ll follow your advice and read more about the pre-revolutionary > > dignitaries. > > Hm, I didn´t even know about William Franklin. Perhaps a veriation of > > the Albany plan gets accepted, might that bring Benjemin Franklin a title of > > nobility his son can inherit? > > Perhaps an auction of titles in the New World to buy off the > revolutionary intelligentsia with? Well, again, we're talking about a POD where the intelligentsia really hasn't become revolutionized. There is precedence for what you talk about, though. James I created the baronetcy in order to raise funds. There were even baronetcies of Nova Scotia. Now, in the absence of the Crown, Americans with a genealogical bent have created a whole series of societies--The Order of the Cincinnati, Sons/Daughters of the American Revolution, Colonial Dames, etc--whose purpose seems to be to act as surrogates for the Crown, and help us distinguish which Americans are "better" than others. You Canadians in the audience might appreciate the arms of the Colonial Dames, comprising quarterly (1) England (with France), (2) France modern, (3) the United Provinces, (4) Sweden. (My guess is that Spain's arms were probably excluded for racial reasons.) Anyhow, there probably were and are plenty of Americans who would have paid good money to have the Crown confer a baronetcy on them. Why not baronets of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and so on, down to Georgia? Daniel MacGregor Subject: Re: AH Challenge: American House of Lords Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 00:12:12 GMT From: plloyd@ecel.uwa.edu.au Organization: The University of Western Australia Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 In article <47114b80.0106040638.16aa337a@posting.google.com>, dmaqgregor@hotmail.com (Daniel MacGregor) wrote: >Well, again, we're talking about a POD where the intelligentsia really >hasn't become revolutionized. > >There is precedence for what you talk about, though. James I created >the baronetcy in order to raise funds. There were even baronetcies of >Nova Scotia. > >Now, in the absence of the Crown, Americans with a genealogical bent >have created a whole series of societies--The Order of the Cincinnati, >Sons/Daughters of the American Revolution, Colonial Dames, etc--whose >purpose seems to be to act as surrogates for the Crown, and help us >distinguish which Americans are "better" than others. You Canadians >in the audience might appreciate the arms of the Colonial Dames, >comprising quarterly (1) England (with France), (2) France modern, (3) >the United Provinces, (4) Sweden. (My guess is that Spain's arms were >probably excluded for racial reasons.) > >Anyhow, there probably were and are plenty of Americans who would have >paid good money to have the Crown confer a baronetcy on them. Why not >baronets of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and so on, down to Georgia? > >Daniel MacGregor In support of this whole idea, one might note that just such a scheme was proposed for Australia in the 1860's/70's. The idea seems to have been to create an aristocracy out of the existing landed classes and set Australia on its way as a political copy of Britain at that time...